Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince wrote a book called Turin Shroud – in Whose Image
showing that there was nothing miraculous about the image and the face on it was
the face of the man who had forged it – Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) and the
body belonged to somebody else. Whether or not the face was his, it is clear
that it is not proof of the existence of miracles or Jesus. It is hard to
believe that Leo would have created such a bad forgery but then again it is good
in the sense that it appears to be so baffling and was even more so in the past
and that was what was important to him. And the objection of many that Leonardo
never hinted that he was making a Shroud is silly for he couldn’t say if he was.
If Leonardo didn’t make the Shroud maybe an associate of his did behind his
back.

The book says the Shroud is a kind of photograph and explains that Leonardo had
the knowledge and ability and motive to make it. What helps support the view
that Leonardo created the Shroud is that many of his paintings were created
without using drawings on the surface he was painting on as guidance. He had the
genius to paint the Shroud and the skill to paint without leaving brushmarks.
But it seems the Shroud could be a crude photograph.

The authors made an image like the Shroud image and it is admitted even by
critics that the chemical solution the book says Leonardo used to make the snap
could have been available to Leonardo (www.unisa.ac.za/dept/press/dearte/52/shroud2.html
How Leonardo Did not Fake the Shroud of Turin, Nicholas Legh Allen). But they
think the formula was not likely to have been used even if somebody was making
photos in the middle ages. This is silly for it is like somebody finding a
photograph allegedly from the thirteenth century and dismissing it as a forgery
just because photography was not invented until the 19th century. The truth is
we only think photography was first invented then and if we ignore the photo we
could be ignoring the thing that proves us wrong. We know Leonardo read ancient
texts about photosensitive chemicals. He designed camera obscuras and it has
been found (Nicholas Allen) that a tower in Fontanellato in Italy could have
been used by Leonardo to make the Shroud for it works like a camera and would
capture an image on the Shroud if the right chemicals were deployed with the
help of sunlight.

Photography could have been invented before the 19th century because the images
it made like the Shroud were too vague and nobody, apart from an unusual few,
was that interested in it. Plus the Church would have seen it as alchemy which
was forbidden under grave penalties.

Some object that Leonardo needed to look like a Jew and have his face beaten to
a pulp to make the image. But this ignores the fact that he would have used a
bust not his actual face to put his face on the image. Leonardo could not have
directly used his own face to make the picture for that would entail sitting a
long time and being burned to a crisp by the sun. The book contains a picture
that reveals that Leonardo and the Shroud man were dead ringers and both had
long hair and strong beards. You don’t have to be a Jew to look like a Jew.

The claim of many believers that the Shroud man’s nose was broken is a lie.
There is no evidence and many experts say as much. And if his nose was broken
then how do you know it was broken during the Passion? It may have been
misshapen from an earlier injury. Yet this lie about the broken nose is used by
many to ridicule the hypothesis that the face of the Shroud man is Leonardo da
Vinci who was possibly the creator of the Shroud. They jeer, “So we are supposed
to believe that Leonardo had his nose broken to make the Shroud?” As we said,
Leonardo was an artist and could have used materials to make his face or the
bust with his face look injured.

Nicholas Allen has produced cloths exactly like the Shroud of Turin. When they
are all shown in the negative you can see huge blotches and variations in
shading in the background. This effect also appears in the Turin Shroud. If the
Shroud were a miracle this would not be happening for God would not need or
desire that effect. Worse if he did then why does the background not capture the
image of the stone or whatever Jesus was laid out on? Allen used materials and
devices that were certainly available in medieval times. His work then is better
than that of Picknett and Prince in that respect.

It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that even in 1280 AD it was possible to
make a photograph on linen to make the Shroud. Using a plaster cast of Jesus and
silver nitrate solution and ammonia solution (human or animal urine will do) on
linen which contains chemicals itself that can help form an image plus a plain
old magnifying glass or a natural quartz crystal with the same ability can form
a Shroud image with the help of a very strong sun and it helps a lot of the cast
is painted white (www.petech.ac.za/shroud/is the.htm). You need a cast for the
process is slow. The fact that the sun would have been used to provide the light
source for making the Shroud is betrayed by the fact that the Shroud man’s body
parts that are prominent are the brightest for the sun would reflect off them
the most. This has been tested in experiments and faint yellow images that are
in the negative and which rest on the upper fibres of the linen cloth have been
made thus replicating the features of the Turin Shroud and showing it is no
miracle. It is better to believe that some medieval genius stumbled on the
secret of photography than to hold the Shroud up as a miracle for the first is
naturally possible. When the Shroud is a photo it cannot be the image of Jesus
at all because photography could not go back to his day. The medieval alchemists
who experimented in everything could have developed some crude form of
photography.

The Shroud created by Nicholas Allen matches the claims made for the Turin
Shroud, that there is no pigment or dye used, that there is no sign of
directionality, heat and water don’t harm the image, the image sits just on the
top of the fibres of the cloth and does not penetrate and shows up best in the
negative image and is very subtle in the positive image.

There are other ways to explain the image - photography is possible but there
are other equally good and even better theories.